to prevent terrorists from using chemical weapons to cause the massive infliction of death or physical injury on huge numbers of innocent persons. But the way it is actually written, it forbids anyone to use or merely “possess” any “chemical weapon, which is defined to include “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to persons or animals,” unless it is used for certain—very narrowly defined—purposes permitted under the law. The way this statute is written, as the Supreme Court noted with frustration a couple years ago in Bond v. United States, it is a felony under federal law if a parent, “exasperated by the children’s repeated failure to clean the goldfish tank, . . . considers poisoning the fish with a few drops of vinegar.” And of course that is only half the problem, because this statute forbids both the use and the mere possession of such a chemical weapon, so you would be guilty of a violation just by picking up the vinegar at the grocery store for that purpose, even if federal agents caught and arrested you before you poisoned the tank.